Misplaced Pages

Egalitarianism: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:19, 1 May 2007 edit71.224.218.179 (talk) →Nonegalitarian view← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:13, 21 December 2024 edit undoCyrobyte (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers30,360 edits Reverted edits by 46.7.163.63 (talk): please use the talk page (WP:TPHELP) or be bold and fix the problem (HG) (3.4.13)Tags: Huggle Manual revert 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|Trend of thought that favors equality for all people}}
'''Egalitarianism''' (derived from the ] word '''égal''', meaning ''equal'' or ''level'') is the moral doctrine that people should be treated as equals, in some respect. Generally it applies to being held equal under the law, the church, and society at large.
{{redirect|Equalist|the antagonists in The Legend of Korra|The Equalists}}
==Introduction==
{{use dmy dates|date=February 2021}}
Perhaps in its "purest" theoretical form, '''Egalitarianism''' affirms, promotes, and believes in equal political, economic opportunity, social, and civil rights for all people. In actual practice, one may be considered an egalitarian in most areas listed above, even if not subscribing to equality in every possible area of individual difference. For example, one might support equal rights in race matters but not in gender issues, or vice versa.


'''Egalitarianism''' ({{ety|fr|égal|equal}}), or '''equalitarianism''',<ref>{{cite web |title=Definition of equalitarianism |work=The Free Dictionary |publisher=Houghton Mifflin Company |year=2009 |url=http://www.thefreedictionary.com/equalitarianism}}</ref><ref>{{dictionary.com |equalitarianism |access-date=7 May 2018}}</ref> is a ] within political philosophy that builds on the concept of ], prioritizing it for all people.<ref>{{dictionary.com |egalitarian |access-date=7 May 2018}}</ref> Egalitarian doctrines are generally characterized by the idea that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or moral status.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egalitarianism |title=Egalitarianism |encyclopedia=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |year=2019 |department=Metaphysics Research Lab |publisher=Stanford University}}</ref> As such, all people should be accorded ] and ].<ref>{{Cite book|last=Robertson|first=David|title=The Routledge Dictionary of Politics|publisher=Routledge Taylor and Francis Group|year=2007|isbn=978-0-415-32377-2|page=159}}</ref><ref>{{cite encyclopedia |title=Egalitarianism |dictionary=Merriam-Webster Dictionary |url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/egalitarianism |date=7 June 2023}}</ref> Egalitarian doctrines have supported many modern social movements, including the ], ], ], and ].<ref>{{Cite web |title=Egalitarianism |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/egalitarianism |access-date=2022-10-06 |website=] |language=en}}</ref>
==Nonegalitarian view==
Based on scientific research, a typical ''nonegalitarian'' view holds that people born into one or more of these—a more favorable gender, social caste, race or ethnicity, or with special breeding or education or physical attractiveness, or any other specific criteria—should be considered of greater worth or value, and hence be treated preferentially.


One key aspect of egalitarianism is its emphasis on equal opportunities for all individuals, regardless of their background or circumstances. This means ensuring that everyone has access to the same resources, education, and opportunities to succeed in life. By promoting equal opportunities, egalitarianism aims to level the playing field and reduce disparities that result from social inequalities.
== Egalitarian individualism ==
Egalitarian Individualism is an idea espoused most by the stoics. It is the philosophy that each human being is equally worthy of human rights despite one's nation, ethnic group, or gender. This view also forms the basis of much of the eighteenth century philosopher Immanuel Kant's work. Kant states that human beings are equally due the right to be treated morally and ethically. Global regimes, and humanitarian aid organizations all function off of the idea that individuals, no matter what country or nation they are a part of, deserve to have human rights, and the protection of those human rights. All of these global regimes are heavily affected by the philosophy of Egalitarian Individualism.


== Forms ==
==The ] view==
Some specifically focused egalitarian concerns include ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]. Common forms of egalitarianism include political and philosophical.<ref>{{Citation |last=Arneson |first=Richard |title=Egalitarianism |date=2013 |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/egalitarianism/ |encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |editor-last=Zalta |editor-first=Edward N. |edition=Summer 2013 |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=2022-06-18}}</ref>
{{see also|Christian egalitarianism}}


=== Legal egalitarianism ===
===Affirmative view===
{{further|Equality before the law}}
The ] view holds that the Bible, properly interpreted, teaches the fundamental equality of men and women of all racial and ethnic groups, all economic classes, and all age groups, based on the teachings and example of Jesus Christ and the overarching principles of scripture as articulated in {{bibleverse|Galatians|3:28|TNIV}}. While Bible passages are subject to various interpretations, Christian egalitarians believe that:
{{liberalism sidebar}}
::*there should be no gender distinction in roles of men and women in the function or leadership of the church, to include ordination of women, or in society in general
{{republicanism sidebar}}
::*in marriage the wife and husband not only are created equal as female and male, but there is no biblically-prescribed hierarchy giving the husband any authority over the wife.
One argument is that ] provides democratic societies with the means to carry out civic reform by providing a framework for developing public policy and providing the correct conditions for individuals to achieve civil rights.<ref>{{cite conference |author=Rosales, José María |url=http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Poli/PoliRosa.htm |title=Liberalism, Civic Reformism, and Democracy |conference=20th World Congress on Philosophy: Political Philosophy |date=12 March 2010}}</ref> There are two major types of equality:<ref name="EU"></ref>
* ''Formal equality'': individual merit-based ].
* '']'': moves away from individual merit-based comparison towards ]s for groups and ].


==== Equality of person ====
Ultimately, it holds that all human persons are equal in fundamental worth or moral status. A significant source of this trend of thought is the Christian notion that humankind were created in the living image of God '''(])''' and that God loves all human beings equally, regardless of their individual differences in gender, race, status, position, etc.<ref name='Stanford'> {{cite web|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egalitarianism/ |title=Egalitarianism |accessdate=2007-02-10 |last=Arneson |first=Richard |date=2002-08-16 |work=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2003 Edition)}}</ref> Illustrative of efforts to institutionalize this notion are these excerpts from an organizational ''Statement of Faith'':
The ] and the ] use only the term person in operative language involving fundamental rights and responsibilities, except for a reference to men in the English Bill of Rights regarding men on trial for treason; and a rule of proportional Congressional representation in the ].{{Citation needed|date=July 2023}}


As the rest of the Constitution, in its operative language the ] uses the term person, stating that "nor shall any State deprives any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".<ref>{{Cite web |date=2021-09-07 |title=14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868) |url=https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment |access-date=2024-06-21 |website=National Archives |language=en}}</ref>
::*We believe in the equality and essential dignity of men and women of all ethnicities, ages, and classes. We recognize that all persons are made in the image of God and are to reflect that image in the community of believers, in the home, and in society.
::*We believe that men and women are to diligently develop and use their God-given gifts for the good of the home, church and society.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/about/who_we_are.shtml#statement |title=Statement of Faith |accessdate=2007-02-10 |publisher=] }}</ref>


==== Gender equality ====
===''Nonegalitarian'' Christian view===
The motto "{{lang|fr|]}}" was used during the ] and is still used as an official motto of the French government. The 1789 ] French Constitution is also framed with this basis in equal rights of humankind.{{Citation needed|date=July 2023}}
Today in Christianity the ''non-egalitarian'' view is usually called ''']'''. It maintains that the office of pastor, and in some churches also the offices of elder and deacon, are denied to women. Marriage is also to be male dominant. The husband is uniquely responsible for "his" family, and the wife must "graciously submit" to his leadership.<ref>www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp</ref> Vital to understanding this concept is realizing that the man and woman in a Christian marriage are spiritually united and hence serve each other. Therefore, this principle is not to be interpreted as 'The woman must submit to the man's whim', since in a loving relationship, the husband wishes the best for the wife (and visa versa).
Besides the interpretation of {{bibleref|Galatians|3:28}} made by Christian egalitarians, there are other possible interpretations and applications. One such example is the interpretation that Christ views everyone on an equal moral ground, therefore having no implications for church duties or authority, or whether or not a wife should be submissive to her husband. Therefore, the dominant understanding of non-egalitarian Christianity lies in recognizing that God created the world in a certain hierarchy, and that the woman and man are complimentary, rather than completely equal in every dimension. In a sense, man and woman are like apples and oranges rather than like fruit and bacteria.


The ] is an example of an assertion of equality of men as "]" and the wording of men and man is a reference to both men and women, i.e., mankind. ] is sometimes considered the founder of this form.{{Citation needed|date=July 2023}} Many state constitutions in the United States also use the rights of man language rather than rights of person{{Citation needed|date=July 2023}} since the noun man has always been a reference to and an inclusion of both men and women.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Rauer |first1=Christine |year=2017 |title=Mann and Gender in Old English Prose: A Pilot Study |url=https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11061-016-9489-1.pdf |journal=Neophilologus |volume=101 |pages=139–158 |doi=10.1007/s11061-016-9489-1 |s2cid=55817181 |hdl-access=free |hdl=10023/8978}}</ref>
==Other applications of Egalitarianism==
'''Egalitarianism''' is a philosophy of considerable variety or diversity in the many ways it has been applied in society. Other common forms of egalitarianism include ] (also known as material egalitarianism), ] egalitarianism, ], ], ], ], ], and ].


The ] provides that "men and women shall be equal in their rights and duties".<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Tunisia_2014|title=The Constitution Project}}</ref>
===Moral and legal egalitarianism===
The ] includes a kind of moral and legal egalitarianism. Because "]," each person is to be treated equally under the law. However, not until much later did U.S. society extend these benefits to ]s, women and other groups. Over time, universal egalitarianism has won wide adherence and is a core component of modern ] policies.


] is informed by egalitarian philosophy, being a gender-focused philosophy of equality. Feminism is distinguished from egalitarianism by also existing as a political and social movement.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Fiss|first=Owen|date=1994|title=What is feminism|journal=Arizona State Law Journal|volume=26|pages=413–428|via=HeinOnline}}</ref>
===Broadly egalitarian philosophies===
At a cultural level, egalitarian theories have developed in sophistication and acceptance during the past two hundred years. Among the notable broadly egalitarian philosophies are ], ], ], ], and ], which promote economic, political, and legal egalitarianism, respectively. Several egalitarian ideas enjoy wide support among ]s and in the general populations of many countries. Whether any of these ideas have been significantly implemented in practice, however, remains a controversial question. For instance, some argue that modern ] is a realization of political egalitarianism, while others believe that, in reality, most political power still resides in the hands of a ], rather than in the hands of the people.


=== Social egalitarianism ===
===Communism, Marxism===
{{socialism sidebar}}
Different kinds of egalitarianism can sometimes conflict, while in other situations they may be indispensable to each other. For instance, ] is an egalitarian ], according to which everyone is supposed to enjoy material equality. However, because material inequality is pervasive in the current international ], something must be done to remove it. Since those who enjoy the greatest material wealth are not likely to wish to part with it, some form of coercive mechanism must exist in the transition period before communism. But if the coercive powers of redistribution are vested in some people and not in others, a ] will take place, and inequalities of political power would emerge. History has shown, in the former ] for instance, that people who are granted coercive redistributive powers often abuse them. Indeed, those with political power were known to redistribute vastly unequal shares of material resources to themselves, thereby completely confounding the justification for their unequal political status. Therefore, most ] now agree that communism can only be achieved if the coercive powers of redistribution needed during the transitional period are vested in a ] body whose powers are limited by various ], in order to prevent abuse. In other words, they argue that political egalitarianism is indispensable to material egalitarianism. Meanwhile, other defenders of material egalitarianism have rejected Marxist communism in favor of such views as ] or ], which do not necessarily advocate the transitional use of the state as a means of redistribution.
At a cultural level, egalitarian theories have developed in sophistication and acceptance during the past two hundred years. Among the notable broadly egalitarian philosophies are ], ], ], ], ], and ], some of which propound ]. Anti-egalitarianism<ref>{{cite journal |author1=Sidanius, Jim |display-authors=etal |title=Social dominance orientation, anti-egalitarianism and the political psychology of gender: An extension and cross-cultural replication |journal=European Journal of Social Psychology |volume=30 |issue=1 |year=2000 |pages=41–67 |doi=10.1002/(sici)1099-0992(200001/02)30:1<41::aid-ejsp976>3.0.co;2-o}}</ref> or ]<ref>{{cite web |url=http://englishthesaurus.net/antonym/egalitarian/ |title=Antonyms for egalitarian |website=English Thesaurus |access-date=28 September 2018}}</ref> is opposition to egalitarianism.


==== Economic {{anchor|Economic egalitarianism|Economics|Finance|Financial}} ====
===Egalitarianism in hunter-gatherer groups===
An early example of equality is what might be described as outcome economic egalitarianism is the Chinese philosophy of ] which held that the economic policies of a country need to be based upon egalitarian self-sufficiency.<ref name="dw">{{cite book |last=Denecke |first=Wiebke |year=2011 |page=38 |title=The Dynamics of Masters Literature: Early Chinese Thought from Confucius to Han Feizi |publisher=Harvard University Press}}</ref>
There have been instances of egalitarianism found in modern ] groups, in several parts of the world. Even when it is within an individuals favour, or has no obvious benefit, many returning hunters will share meat with the rest of the group. The more pronounced egalitarianism can be found in leadership. Many of these groups do not have a defined leader, only for contact with modern societies (they may have mastered another language for example). This is reflected in group discussions, where individuals with mastery in one subject such as hunting will be respected, but never obeyed (if the whole group decide to go another way). If one individual does attempt to take control, then they may be ridiculed, punished or ignored.<ref>Erdal, D. & Whiten, A. (1996) "Egalitarianism and Machiavellian Intelligence in Human Evolution" in Mellars, P. & Gibson, K. (eds) Modelling the Early Human Mind. Cambridge Macdonald Monograph Series</ref>

In ], ] of ] is sometimes considered to be a form of economic egalitarianism because in an economy characterized by social ownership the ] generated by industry would accrue to the population as a whole as opposed to a class of private owners, thereby granting each increased autonomy and greater equality in their relationships with one another. Although the economist ] is sometimes mistaken to be an egalitarian, Marx eschewed normative theorizing on moral principles altogether. Marx did have a theory of the evolution of moral principles concerning specific ]s.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egalitarianism/#KarMarEquRig |title=Egalitarianism |date=16 August 2002 |encyclopedia=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=20 November 2013}}</ref>

The American economist ] has put forth a new perspective on equality and its relationship to socialism. Roemer attempts to reformulate ] to accommodate normative principles of ], shifting the argument for socialism away from purely technical and materialist reasons to one of distributive justice. Roemer argues that according to the principle of distributive justice, the traditional definition of socialism is based on the principle that individual compensation is proportional to the value of the labor one expends in production ("]") is inadequate. Roemer concludes that egalitarians must reject socialism as it is classically defined for equality to be realized.<ref name="Socialism vs Social Democracy as Income-Equalizing Institutions, 2008">{{cite journal |title=Socialism vs Social Democracy as Income-Equalizing Institutions |author=Roemer, John |year=2008 |journal=Eastern Economic Journal |volume=34 |issue=1 |pages=14–26 |doi=10.1057/palgrave.eej.9050011|s2cid=153503350 }}</ref>

The egalitarian management style focusses on the approach to democratize power, decision-making, and responsibility and distributed them more evenly among all members of a team or organization.<ref>The culture Map, Erin Meyer, 2014</ref>

=== Egalitarianism and non-human animals ===
Many philosophers, including Ingmar Persson,<ref>{{cite book |author=Persson, I. |year=1993 |contribution=A basis for (interspecies) equality |editor1=Cavalieri, P. |editor2=Singer, P. |title=The Great Ape Project |place=New York, NY |publisher=St. Martin's Press |pages=183–193}}</ref> ],<ref>{{cite journal |author=Vallentyne, P. |year=2005 |title=Of mice and men: Equality and animals |journal=Journal of Ethics |volume=9 |issue=3–4 |pages=403–433 |doi=10.1007/s10892-005-3509-x|hdl=10355/10183 |s2cid=13151744 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> Nils Holtug,<ref>{{cite book |author=Holtug, N. |year=2007 |contribution=Equality for animals |editor1=Ryberg, J. |editor2=Petersen, T.S. |editor3=Wolf, C. |title=New Waves in Applied Ethics |place=Basingstoke |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |pages=1–24}}</ref> ]<ref>{{cite journal |author=Faria, C. |year=2014 |url=https://www.academia.edu/5911405 |title=Equality, priority and nonhuman animals |journal=Dilemata: International Journal of Applied Ethics |volume=14 |pages=225–236}}</ref> and ],<ref>Gompertz, L. (1997 ) Moral inquiries on the situation of man and of brutes, London: Open Gate.</ref> have argued that egalitarianism implies that the interests of non-human animals must be taken into account as well. Philosopher ] has further argued that egalitarianism implies rejecting ], ceasing to exploit non-human animals and aiding ].<ref name="Horta2014">{{cite journal |last=Horta |first=Oscar |date=25 November 2014 |title=Egalitarianism and Animals |url=https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/bts/vol19/iss1/5 |journal=Between the Species |volume=19 |issue=1}}</ref> Furthermore, Horta argues that non-human animals should be prioritized since they are worse off than humans.<ref name=" Horta2014" />

=== Religious and spiritual egalitarianism ===
==== Christianity ====
{{See also|Christian egalitarianism}}
In 1957, ] quoted Galatians 3:28 ("There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus"<ref>{{cite web |title=Galatians 3:28 NIV |url=https://biblia.com/bible/niv/galatians/3/28 |access-date=4 October 2020 |website=biblia.com}}</ref>) in a pamphlet opposing ]. He wrote, "Racial segregation is a blatant denial of the unity which we all have in Christ."<ref>{{cite web |date=10 February 1957 |title='For All ... A Non-Segregated Society,' A Message for Race Relations Sunday |url=https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/all-non-segregated-society-message-race-relations-sunday |access-date=22 August 2020 |website=The Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and Education Institute |publisher=] |language=en}}</ref> He also alluded to that verse at the end of his 1963 "]" speech.<ref name="Neutel">{{cite news |last1=Neutel |first1=Karin |date=19 May 2020 |title=Galatians 3:28—Neither Jew nor Greek, Slave nor Free, Male and Female |language=en |work=Biblical Archaeology Society |url=https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-interpretation/galatians-3-28/ |access-date=22 August 2020}}</ref> The verse is cited to support an ] interpretation of Christianity.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Buell |first1=Denise Kimber |last2=Hodge |first2=Caroline Johnson |date=2004 |title=The Politics of Interpretation: The Rhetoric of Race and Ethnicity in Paul |journal=Journal of Biblical Literature |volume=123 |issue=2 |page=235 |doi=10.2307/3267944 |issn=0021-9231 |jstor=3267944}}</ref> According to Jakobus M. Vorster, the central question debated by theologians is whether the statement about ecclesiastical relationships can be translated into a Christian-ethical norm for all human relationships.<ref name="vorster">{{cite journal |last1=Vorster |first1=Jakobus M. |date=2019 |title=The Theological-Ethical Implications of Galatians 3:28 for a Christian Perspective on Equality as a Foundational Value in the Human Rights Discourse |journal=In die Skriflig / In Luce Verbi |volume=53 |issue=1 |page=8 |doi=10.4102/ids.v53i1.2494 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Vorster argues that it can, and that the verse provides a Christian foundation for the promotion of ] and equality, in contrast to "patriarchy, racism and exploitation" which in his opinion are caused by human sinfulness.<ref name="vorster" /> Karin Neutel notes how some apply the philosophy of Paul's statement to include sexuality, health and race saying " three pairs must have been as relevant in the first century, as the additional categories are today." She argues that the verse points to a ], ] community.<ref name="Neutel" />

==== Islam ====
The verse ]:13 of The ] states: "O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the noblest of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted".<ref>{{cite web |title=The Quranic Arabic Corpus – Translation |url=http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=49&verse=13 |website=corpus.quran.com |access-date=30 December 2019}}</ref> ] echoed these egalitarian sentiments, sentiments that clashed with the practices of the pre-Islamic cultures.{{Citation needed|date=July 2023}} In a review of Louise Marlow's ''Hierarchy and Egalitarianism in Islamic Thought,'' ] argues the desire for the Arab-Muslim Empire to consolidate power and administer the state rather led to the deemphasis of egalitarian teachings in the Qur'an and by the Prophet.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Poonawala |first1=Ismail |author-link1=Ismail Poonawala |title=Reviewed Work: Hierarchy and Egalitarianism in Islamic Thought by Louise Marlow |journal=Iranian Studies |date=Summer 1999 |volume=32 |issue=3 |pages=405–407 |doi=10.1017/S0021086200002759 |jstor=4311272 |s2cid=245659108 }}</ref>

=== Modern egalitarianism theory ===
Modern egalitarianism is a theory that rejects the classic definition of egalitarianism as a possible achievement economically, politically, and socially. Modern egalitarianism theory, or new egalitarianism, outlines that if everyone had the same ],{{clarify|date=June 2020}} then there would be no comparative advances and no one would gain from trading with each other. In essence, the immense gains people receive from trading with each other arise because they are unequal in characteristics and talents—these differences may be innate or developed so that people can gain from trading with each other.<ref>{{Cite web|url= http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_22_1_01_whaples.pdf |title=Egalitarianism: Fair and equal? New thinking on egalitarianism |last=Whaples |first=Robert M. |date= Summer 2017 |website=The Independent Review |access-date=}}</ref>

== Discussion {{anchor|criticisms}} ==

=== Alexander Berkman and Thompson et. al ===
Thompson et al. theorize that any society consisting of only one perspective, be it egalitarianism, hierarchies, ], ] or ] will be inherently unstable as the claim is that an interplay between all these perspectives are required if each perspective is to be fulfilling. Although an individualist according to cultural theory is aversive towards both principles and groups, individualism is not fulfilling if individual brilliance cannot be recognized by groups, or if individual brilliance cannot be made permanent in the form of principles.<ref name="Thompson 1990">{{cite book |last1=Thompson |first1=Michael |url=https://archive.org/details/culturaltheory0000thom |title=Cultural Theory |last2=Ellis |first2=Richard |last3=Wildavsky |first3=Aaron |publisher=] |year=1990 |isbn=9780813378640 |series=Political Cultures |url-access=registration}}</ref>{{Rp|page=121}} Accordingly, they argue that egalitarians have no power except through their presence, unless they (by definition, reluctantly) embrace principles which enable them to cooperate with fatalists and hierarchies. They argue that this means they will also have no individual sense of direction without a group, which could be mitigated by following individuals outside their group, namely autonomists or individualists. ] suggests that "equality does not mean an equal amount but equal opportunity. ... Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the forced equality of the convict camp. True anarchist equality implies freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that everyone must eat, drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from it: the very reverse. ... Individual needs and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is an equal opportunity to satisfy them that constitutes true equality. ... Far from leveling, such equality opens the door for the greatest possible variety of activity and development. For human character is diverse."<ref>{{cite book |last=Berkman |first=Alexander |title=What is Anarchism? |publisher=] |year=2003 |isbn=1-902593-70-7 |pages=164–165}}</ref>

The ] holds egalitarianism—with ] termed as its opposite<ref name="Thompson 1990" />{{Rp|page=78}}—as defined by a negative attitude towards rules and principles; and a positive attitude towards ].<ref name="Thompson 1990" />{{Rp|page=157}} The theory distinguishes between ], who are positive towards both rules and groups; and egalitarians, who are positive towards groups, but negative towards rules. This is by definition a form of ] equality as referred to by Berkman. Thus, the fabric of an egalitarian society is held together by ] and implicit ] rather than by explicit rules and punishment.<ref name="Thompson 1990" />{{Rp|page=158}}

=== Marxism ===
] and ] believed that an ] ] would bring about a ] which would then eventually give way to a ] which would be a classless, stateless, moneyless, humane society erected on ] of the ] and the principle of "]".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/index.htm|title=Critique of the Gotha Programme'|last=Marx|first=Karl}}</ref> ] rejected egalitarianism in the sense of greater equality between classes, clearly distinguishing it from the socialist notion of the abolition of classes based on the division between workers and owners of productive property.{{Citation needed|date=July 2023}}

Allen Woods finds that Marx's view of classlessness was not the subordination of society to a universal interest such as a universal notion of equality, but it was about the creation of the conditions that would enable individuals to pursue their true interests and desires, making Marx's notion of ] radically individualistic.<ref>{{cite book |last=Woods |first=Allen |url=http://philosophy.fas.nyu.edu/docs/IO/19808/Allen-Wood-Marx-on-Equality.pdf |title= The Free Development of Each: Studies on Freedom, Right, and Ethics in Classical German Philosophy |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2014 |isbn=978-0199685530 |chapter=Karl Marx on Equality |doi=10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199685530.001.0001 |quote=Marx thinks the idea of equality is a vehicle for bourgeois class oppression, and something quite different from the communist goal of the abolition of classes. ... A society that has transcended class antagonisms, therefore, would not be one in which some truly universal interest at last reigns, to which individual interests must be sacrificed. It would instead be a society in which individuals freely act as the truly human individuals they are. Marx's radical communism was, in this way, also radically individualistic. |access-date=12 September 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151109182602/http://philosophy.fas.nyu.edu/docs/IO/19808/Allen-Wood-Marx-on-Equality.pdf |archive-date=9 November 2015 |url-status=dead}}</ref> Although his position is often confused or conflated with distributive egalitarianism in which only the goods and services resulting from production are distributed according to notional equality, Marx eschewed the entire concept of equality as abstract and bourgeois, preferring to focus on more concrete principles such as opposition to exploitation on materialist grounds and economic logic.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Nielsen|first=Kai|date=August 1987|title=Rejecting Egalitarianism|journal=Political Theory|publisher=SAGE Publications|volume=15|issue=3|pages=411–423|doi=10.1177/0090591787015003008|jstor=191211|s2cid=143748543}}</ref>

=== Murray Rothbard ===
In the title essay of his book '']'', ] argued that egalitarian theory always results in a politics of statist control because it is founded on revolt against the ontological structure of reality itself.<ref name="Rothbard">{{cite book |last1=Rothbard |first1=Murray N. |url=https://mises.org/library/egalitarianism-revolt-against-nature-and-other-essays |title=Egalitarianism as a revolt against nature, and other essays |publisher=] |year=2000 |isbn=0-945466-23-4 |edition=2nd |location=Auburn, Ala. |access-date=17 February 2023 |orig-date=1974}}</ref> According to Rothbard, individuals are naturally unequal in their abilities, talents, and characteristics. He believed that this inequality was not only natural but necessary for a functioning society. In his view, people's unique qualities and abilities are what allow them to contribute to society in different ways.<ref name="Rothbard" />

Rothbard argued that egalitarianism was a misguided attempt to impose an artificial equality on individuals, which would ultimately lead to societal breakdown. He believed that attempts to force equality through government policies or other means would stifle individual freedom and prevent people from pursuing their own interests and passions.<ref name="Rothbard" /> Furthermore, Rothbard believed that egalitarianism was rooted in envy and resentment towards those who were more successful or talented than others. He saw it as a destructive force that would lead to a culture of mediocrity, where people were discouraged from striving for excellence.<ref name="Rothbard" />

===Equity===
{{Main|Social equity}}
The Atlas movement defines equitism as the idea that all groups should have equal rights and benefits.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.atlasmovement.org/equitism|title=The Equitist Manifesto|website=Atlas}}</ref> The term has been used as the claimed philosophical basis of ], a proposed ] to be built in the United States by ].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Gleeson |first=Scott |title=Billionaire Marc Lore outlines how he will build the inclusive, Utopian desert city Telosa |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/10/17/how-billionaire-marc-lore-plans-create-utopian-desert-city-telosa/5991523001/ |access-date=2024-02-15 |website=USA Today}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Kingson |first=Jennifer |date=August 25, 2022 |title='Cities of the future,' built from scratch |url=https://www.axios.com/2022/08/25/city-of-the-future-neom-telosa-lore-mbs |access-date=February 15, 2024 |work=]}}</ref> ] is about equality of outcomes for each groups, while egalitarianism generally advocates for equality of opportunity, recognizing that a fair society should provide all members with the same opportunities while recognizing that different outcomes are expected due to human individuality.<ref name="abcnews">{{cite news |last1=Alfonseca |first1=Kiara |title=DEI: What does it mean and what is its purpose? |url=https://abcnews.go.com/US/dei-programs/story?id=97004455 |access-date=25 March 2023 |publisher=ABC News |date=10 February 2023}}</ref>


== See also == == See also ==
{{cols|colwidth=14em}}
{{Ideology-small}}
*] * "]"
*] * ]
* ]
*]
*] * ]
* ]
*]
*] * ]
* ]
*]
*] * ]
* ]
*]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
{{colend}}


==References== == References ==
{{reflist|25em}}
<div class='references-small'>
<references/>
</div>


== External links ==
*
{{Wiktionary|egalitarian}}
{{Wiktionary}}
{{Wikiquote}}
* '']''
** {{cite web|url=http://www.iep.utm.edu/egalitar/|title=Egalitarianism|access-date=30 December 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170124101217/http://www.iep.utm.edu/egalitar/|archive-date=24 January 2017|url-status=dead}}
** {{cite web|url=http://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-eg/|title=Moral Egalitarianism|access-date=15 July 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140717174358/http://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-eg/|archive-date=17 July 2014|url-status=dead}}
* '']''
** {{cite book|last=Arneson|first=Richard|year=2002|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egalitarianism/|title=Egalitarianism|publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University}}
** {{cite book|last=Gosepath|first=Stefan|year=2007|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equality/|title=Equality|publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University}}
** {{cite book|last=Arneson|first=Richard|year=2002|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equal-opportunity/|title=Equality of opportunity|publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University}}
* {{cite book|last=Lepowsky|first=Maria|year=1993|url=http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/catalog/data/023108/0231081200.HTM|title=Fruit of the Motherland: Gender in an Egalitarian Society|location=New York|publisher=Columbia University Press|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071225103920/http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/catalog/data/023108/0231081200.HTM|archive-date=25 December 2007}}
* {{cite web|url=http://www.ucd.ie/esc|title=The Equality Studies Centre}}
* {{cite web|url=http://www.twinoaks.org/|title=Twin Oaks Intentional Community}}
* {{cite web|url=http://www.thefec.org/|title=Federation of Egalitarian Communities}}


{{Government}}
]
{{Political philosophy}}
{{authority control}}


]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 05:13, 21 December 2024

Trend of thought that favors equality for all people "Equalist" redirects here. For the antagonists in The Legend of Korra, see The Equalists.

Egalitarianism (from French égal 'equal'), or equalitarianism, is a school of thought within political philosophy that builds on the concept of social equality, prioritizing it for all people. Egalitarian doctrines are generally characterized by the idea that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or moral status. As such, all people should be accorded equal rights and treatment under the law. Egalitarian doctrines have supported many modern social movements, including the Enlightenment, feminism, civil rights, and international human rights.

One key aspect of egalitarianism is its emphasis on equal opportunities for all individuals, regardless of their background or circumstances. This means ensuring that everyone has access to the same resources, education, and opportunities to succeed in life. By promoting equal opportunities, egalitarianism aims to level the playing field and reduce disparities that result from social inequalities.

Forms

Some specifically focused egalitarian concerns include communism, legal egalitarianism, luck egalitarianism, political egalitarianism, gender egalitarianism, racial equality, equality of opportunity, and Christian egalitarianism. Common forms of egalitarianism include political and philosophical.

Legal egalitarianism

Further information: Equality before the law
Part of a series on
Liberalism
History
Principles
Philosophers
Politicians
Organizations
Regional variants
Related topics
Schools
Part of the Politics series
Republicanism
Concepts
Schools
Types
Philosophers
Politicians
Theoretical works
History
National variants
Related topics
icon Politics portal

One argument is that liberalism provides democratic societies with the means to carry out civic reform by providing a framework for developing public policy and providing the correct conditions for individuals to achieve civil rights. There are two major types of equality:

Equality of person

The English Bill of Rights of 1689 and the United States Constitution use only the term person in operative language involving fundamental rights and responsibilities, except for a reference to men in the English Bill of Rights regarding men on trial for treason; and a rule of proportional Congressional representation in the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

As the rest of the Constitution, in its operative language the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution uses the term person, stating that "nor shall any State deprives any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

Gender equality

The motto "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" was used during the French Revolution and is still used as an official motto of the French government. The 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen French Constitution is also framed with this basis in equal rights of humankind.

The Declaration of Independence of the United States is an example of an assertion of equality of men as "All men are created equal" and the wording of men and man is a reference to both men and women, i.e., mankind. John Locke is sometimes considered the founder of this form. Many state constitutions in the United States also use the rights of man language rather than rights of person since the noun man has always been a reference to and an inclusion of both men and women.

The Tunisian Constitution of 2014 provides that "men and women shall be equal in their rights and duties".

Feminism is informed by egalitarian philosophy, being a gender-focused philosophy of equality. Feminism is distinguished from egalitarianism by also existing as a political and social movement.

Social egalitarianism

Part of a series on
Socialism
Development
Ideas
Models
Variants
Intellectuals
Politicians
Organizations
Related topics
Lists

At a cultural level, egalitarian theories have developed in sophistication and acceptance during the past two hundred years. Among the notable broadly egalitarian philosophies are socialism, communism, social anarchism, libertarian socialism, left-libertarianism, and progressivism, some of which propound economic egalitarianism. Anti-egalitarianism or elitism is opposition to egalitarianism.

Economic

An early example of equality is what might be described as outcome economic egalitarianism is the Chinese philosophy of agriculturalism which held that the economic policies of a country need to be based upon egalitarian self-sufficiency.

In socialism, social ownership of means of production is sometimes considered to be a form of economic egalitarianism because in an economy characterized by social ownership the surplus product generated by industry would accrue to the population as a whole as opposed to a class of private owners, thereby granting each increased autonomy and greater equality in their relationships with one another. Although the economist Karl Marx is sometimes mistaken to be an egalitarian, Marx eschewed normative theorizing on moral principles altogether. Marx did have a theory of the evolution of moral principles concerning specific economic systems.

The American economist John Roemer has put forth a new perspective on equality and its relationship to socialism. Roemer attempts to reformulate Marxist analysis to accommodate normative principles of distributive justice, shifting the argument for socialism away from purely technical and materialist reasons to one of distributive justice. Roemer argues that according to the principle of distributive justice, the traditional definition of socialism is based on the principle that individual compensation is proportional to the value of the labor one expends in production ("To each according to his contribution") is inadequate. Roemer concludes that egalitarians must reject socialism as it is classically defined for equality to be realized.

The egalitarian management style focusses on the approach to democratize power, decision-making, and responsibility and distributed them more evenly among all members of a team or organization.

Egalitarianism and non-human animals

Many philosophers, including Ingmar Persson, Peter Vallentyne, Nils Holtug, Catia Faria and Lewis Gompertz, have argued that egalitarianism implies that the interests of non-human animals must be taken into account as well. Philosopher Oscar Horta has further argued that egalitarianism implies rejecting speciesism, ceasing to exploit non-human animals and aiding animals suffering in nature. Furthermore, Horta argues that non-human animals should be prioritized since they are worse off than humans.

Religious and spiritual egalitarianism

Christianity

See also: Christian egalitarianism

In 1957, Martin Luther King Jr. quoted Galatians 3:28 ("There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus") in a pamphlet opposing racial segregation in the United States. He wrote, "Racial segregation is a blatant denial of the unity which we all have in Christ." He also alluded to that verse at the end of his 1963 "I Have a Dream" speech. The verse is cited to support an egalitarian interpretation of Christianity. According to Jakobus M. Vorster, the central question debated by theologians is whether the statement about ecclesiastical relationships can be translated into a Christian-ethical norm for all human relationships. Vorster argues that it can, and that the verse provides a Christian foundation for the promotion of human rights and equality, in contrast to "patriarchy, racism and exploitation" which in his opinion are caused by human sinfulness. Karin Neutel notes how some apply the philosophy of Paul's statement to include sexuality, health and race saying " three pairs must have been as relevant in the first century, as the additional categories are today." She argues that the verse points to a utopian, cosmopolitan community.

Islam

The verse 49:13 of The Quran states: "O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the noblest of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted". Muhammad echoed these egalitarian sentiments, sentiments that clashed with the practices of the pre-Islamic cultures. In a review of Louise Marlow's Hierarchy and Egalitarianism in Islamic Thought, Ismail Poonawala argues the desire for the Arab-Muslim Empire to consolidate power and administer the state rather led to the deemphasis of egalitarian teachings in the Qur'an and by the Prophet.

Modern egalitarianism theory

Modern egalitarianism is a theory that rejects the classic definition of egalitarianism as a possible achievement economically, politically, and socially. Modern egalitarianism theory, or new egalitarianism, outlines that if everyone had the same opportunity cost, then there would be no comparative advances and no one would gain from trading with each other. In essence, the immense gains people receive from trading with each other arise because they are unequal in characteristics and talents—these differences may be innate or developed so that people can gain from trading with each other.

Discussion

Alexander Berkman and Thompson et. al

Thompson et al. theorize that any society consisting of only one perspective, be it egalitarianism, hierarchies, individualist, fatalist or autonomists will be inherently unstable as the claim is that an interplay between all these perspectives are required if each perspective is to be fulfilling. Although an individualist according to cultural theory is aversive towards both principles and groups, individualism is not fulfilling if individual brilliance cannot be recognized by groups, or if individual brilliance cannot be made permanent in the form of principles. Accordingly, they argue that egalitarians have no power except through their presence, unless they (by definition, reluctantly) embrace principles which enable them to cooperate with fatalists and hierarchies. They argue that this means they will also have no individual sense of direction without a group, which could be mitigated by following individuals outside their group, namely autonomists or individualists. Alexander Berkman suggests that "equality does not mean an equal amount but equal opportunity. ... Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the forced equality of the convict camp. True anarchist equality implies freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that everyone must eat, drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from it: the very reverse. ... Individual needs and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is an equal opportunity to satisfy them that constitutes true equality. ... Far from leveling, such equality opens the door for the greatest possible variety of activity and development. For human character is diverse."

The cultural theory of risk holds egalitarianism—with fatalism termed as its opposite—as defined by a negative attitude towards rules and principles; and a positive attitude towards group decision-making. The theory distinguishes between hierarchists, who are positive towards both rules and groups; and egalitarians, who are positive towards groups, but negative towards rules. This is by definition a form of anarchist equality as referred to by Berkman. Thus, the fabric of an egalitarian society is held together by cooperation and implicit peer pressure rather than by explicit rules and punishment.

Marxism

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels believed that an international proletarian revolution would bring about a socialist society which would then eventually give way to a communist stage of social development which would be a classless, stateless, moneyless, humane society erected on common ownership of the means of production and the principle of "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". Marxism rejected egalitarianism in the sense of greater equality between classes, clearly distinguishing it from the socialist notion of the abolition of classes based on the division between workers and owners of productive property.

Allen Woods finds that Marx's view of classlessness was not the subordination of society to a universal interest such as a universal notion of equality, but it was about the creation of the conditions that would enable individuals to pursue their true interests and desires, making Marx's notion of communist society radically individualistic. Although his position is often confused or conflated with distributive egalitarianism in which only the goods and services resulting from production are distributed according to notional equality, Marx eschewed the entire concept of equality as abstract and bourgeois, preferring to focus on more concrete principles such as opposition to exploitation on materialist grounds and economic logic.

Murray Rothbard

In the title essay of his book Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays, Murray Rothbard argued that egalitarian theory always results in a politics of statist control because it is founded on revolt against the ontological structure of reality itself. According to Rothbard, individuals are naturally unequal in their abilities, talents, and characteristics. He believed that this inequality was not only natural but necessary for a functioning society. In his view, people's unique qualities and abilities are what allow them to contribute to society in different ways.

Rothbard argued that egalitarianism was a misguided attempt to impose an artificial equality on individuals, which would ultimately lead to societal breakdown. He believed that attempts to force equality through government policies or other means would stifle individual freedom and prevent people from pursuing their own interests and passions. Furthermore, Rothbard believed that egalitarianism was rooted in envy and resentment towards those who were more successful or talented than others. He saw it as a destructive force that would lead to a culture of mediocrity, where people were discouraged from striving for excellence.

Equity

Main article: Social equity

The Atlas movement defines equitism as the idea that all groups should have equal rights and benefits. The term has been used as the claimed philosophical basis of Telosa, a proposed utopia to be built in the United States by Marc Lore. Social equity is about equality of outcomes for each groups, while egalitarianism generally advocates for equality of opportunity, recognizing that a fair society should provide all members with the same opportunities while recognizing that different outcomes are expected due to human individuality.

See also

References

  1. "Definition of equalitarianism". The Free Dictionary. Houghton Mifflin Company. 2009.
  2. "equalitarianism". Dictionary.com Unabridged (Online). n.d. Retrieved 7 May 2018.
  3. "egalitarian". Dictionary.com Unabridged (Online). n.d. Retrieved 7 May 2018.
  4. "Egalitarianism". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab. Stanford University. 2019.
  5. Robertson, David (2007). The Routledge Dictionary of Politics. Routledge Taylor and Francis Group. p. 159. ISBN 978-0-415-32377-2.
  6. "Egalitarianism". Merriam-Webster Dictionary. 7 June 2023.
  7. "Egalitarianism". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 6 October 2022.
  8. Arneson, Richard (2013), "Egalitarianism", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2013 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 18 June 2022
  9. Rosales, José María (12 March 2010). Liberalism, Civic Reformism, and Democracy. 20th World Congress on Philosophy: Political Philosophy.
  10. De Vos, M. (2020). The European Court of Justice and the march towards substantive equality in European Union anti-discrimination law. International Journal of Discrimination and the Law, 20(1), 62-87.
  11. "14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868)". National Archives. 7 September 2021. Retrieved 21 June 2024.
  12. Rauer, Christine (2017). "Mann and Gender in Old English Prose: A Pilot Study" (PDF). Neophilologus. 101: 139–158. doi:10.1007/s11061-016-9489-1. hdl:10023/8978. S2CID 55817181.
  13. "The Constitution Project".
  14. Fiss, Owen (1994). "What is feminism". Arizona State Law Journal. 26: 413–428 – via HeinOnline.
  15. Sidanius, Jim; et al. (2000). "Social dominance orientation, anti-egalitarianism and the political psychology of gender: An extension and cross-cultural replication". European Journal of Social Psychology. 30 (1): 41–67. doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0992(200001/02)30:1<41::aid-ejsp976>3.0.co;2-o.
  16. "Antonyms for egalitarian". English Thesaurus. Retrieved 28 September 2018.
  17. Denecke, Wiebke (2011). The Dynamics of Masters Literature: Early Chinese Thought from Confucius to Han Feizi. Harvard University Press. p. 38.
  18. "Egalitarianism". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 16 August 2002. Retrieved 20 November 2013.
  19. Roemer, John (2008). "Socialism vs Social Democracy as Income-Equalizing Institutions". Eastern Economic Journal. 34 (1): 14–26. doi:10.1057/palgrave.eej.9050011. S2CID 153503350.
  20. The culture Map, Erin Meyer, 2014
  21. Persson, I. (1993). "A basis for (interspecies) equality". In Cavalieri, P.; Singer, P. (eds.). The Great Ape Project. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press. pp. 183–193.
  22. Vallentyne, P. (2005). "Of mice and men: Equality and animals". Journal of Ethics. 9 (3–4): 403–433. doi:10.1007/s10892-005-3509-x. hdl:10355/10183. S2CID 13151744.
  23. Holtug, N. (2007). "Equality for animals". In Ryberg, J.; Petersen, T.S.; Wolf, C. (eds.). New Waves in Applied Ethics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 1–24.
  24. Faria, C. (2014). "Equality, priority and nonhuman animals". Dilemata: International Journal of Applied Ethics. 14: 225–236.
  25. Gompertz, L. (1997 ) Moral inquiries on the situation of man and of brutes, London: Open Gate.
  26. ^ Horta, Oscar (25 November 2014). "Egalitarianism and Animals". Between the Species. 19 (1).
  27. "Galatians 3:28 NIV". biblia.com. Retrieved 4 October 2020.
  28. "'For All ... A Non-Segregated Society,' A Message for Race Relations Sunday". The Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and Education Institute. Stanford University. 10 February 1957. Retrieved 22 August 2020.
  29. ^ Neutel, Karin (19 May 2020). "Galatians 3:28—Neither Jew nor Greek, Slave nor Free, Male and Female". Biblical Archaeology Society. Retrieved 22 August 2020.
  30. Buell, Denise Kimber; Hodge, Caroline Johnson (2004). "The Politics of Interpretation: The Rhetoric of Race and Ethnicity in Paul". Journal of Biblical Literature. 123 (2): 235. doi:10.2307/3267944. ISSN 0021-9231. JSTOR 3267944.
  31. ^ Vorster, Jakobus M. (2019). "The Theological-Ethical Implications of Galatians 3:28 for a Christian Perspective on Equality as a Foundational Value in the Human Rights Discourse". In die Skriflig / In Luce Verbi. 53 (1): 8. doi:10.4102/ids.v53i1.2494.
  32. "The Quranic Arabic Corpus – Translation". corpus.quran.com. Retrieved 30 December 2019.
  33. Poonawala, Ismail (Summer 1999). "Reviewed Work: Hierarchy and Egalitarianism in Islamic Thought by Louise Marlow". Iranian Studies. 32 (3): 405–407. doi:10.1017/S0021086200002759. JSTOR 4311272. S2CID 245659108.
  34. Whaples, Robert M. (Summer 2017). "Egalitarianism: Fair and equal? New thinking on egalitarianism" (PDF). The Independent Review.
  35. ^ Thompson, Michael; Ellis, Richard; Wildavsky, Aaron (1990). Cultural Theory. Political Cultures. Routledge. ISBN 9780813378640.
  36. Berkman, Alexander (2003). What is Anarchism?. AK Press. pp. 164–165. ISBN 1-902593-70-7.
  37. Marx, Karl. "Critique of the Gotha Programme'".
  38. Woods, Allen (2014). "Karl Marx on Equality". The Free Development of Each: Studies on Freedom, Right, and Ethics in Classical German Philosophy (PDF). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199685530.001.0001. ISBN 978-0199685530. Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 November 2015. Retrieved 12 September 2014. Marx thinks the idea of equality is a vehicle for bourgeois class oppression, and something quite different from the communist goal of the abolition of classes. ... A society that has transcended class antagonisms, therefore, would not be one in which some truly universal interest at last reigns, to which individual interests must be sacrificed. It would instead be a society in which individuals freely act as the truly human individuals they are. Marx's radical communism was, in this way, also radically individualistic.
  39. Nielsen, Kai (August 1987). "Rejecting Egalitarianism". Political Theory. 15 (3). SAGE Publications: 411–423. doi:10.1177/0090591787015003008. JSTOR 191211. S2CID 143748543.
  40. ^ Rothbard, Murray N. (2000) . Egalitarianism as a revolt against nature, and other essays (2nd ed.). Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute. ISBN 0-945466-23-4. Retrieved 17 February 2023.
  41. "The Equitist Manifesto". Atlas.
  42. Gleeson, Scott. "Billionaire Marc Lore outlines how he will build the inclusive, Utopian desert city Telosa". USA Today. Retrieved 15 February 2024.
  43. Kingson, Jennifer (25 August 2022). "'Cities of the future,' built from scratch". Axios. Retrieved 15 February 2024.
  44. Alfonseca, Kiara (10 February 2023). "DEI: What does it mean and what is its purpose?". ABC News. Retrieved 25 March 2023.

External links

Government
Politics and government
Overviews
Systems
Philosophies
Functions
Components
Governance
processes
Politics
Academic
History
International
Related
Categories
Common types of government ministers and ministries
Leadership
Titles
Defence /
foreign affairs /
public safety
Economics/
infrastructure
Environment /
natural resources
Social
Other
Lists
Public services
Concepts
Basic services
Public utility
Public works
Social services
See also
Political philosophy
Terms
Government
Ideologies
Concepts
Philosophers
Antiquity
Middle Ages
Early modern
period
18th and 19th
centuries
20th and 21st
centuries
Works
Related
Categories: